[Cite as State v. Reinert, 2009-Ohio-3952.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. KEVIN V. REINERT Defendant-Appellant : : : Appellate Case No. 08-CA-93 : : Trial Court Case Nos. 99-CR-527 : Trial Court Case Nos. 99-CR-528 : (Criminal Appeal from : (Common Pleas Court) : : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 7th day of August, 2009. ........... STEPHEN K. HALLER, Atty. Reg. #0009172, by STEPHANIE R. HAYDEN, Atty. Reg. #0082881, Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, 61 Greene Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee BARRY W. WILFORD, Atty. Reg. #0014891, Kura & Wilford Co., L.P.A., 492 City Park Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. BROGAN, J. {¶ 1} Kevin Reinert appeals from the trial court’s judgment entry resentencing him to an aggregate prison term of fifteen years in two consolidated cases, Greene C.P. Nos. 99-CR-527 and 99-CR-528. {¶ 2} The trial court initially sentenced Reinert in the foregoing cases in April
−2−
2000. It then resentenced him pursuant to R.C. 2929.191, 1 and it filed a new judgment entry on October 9, 2008. The new entry imposed the same aggregate fifteen-year sentence Reinert originally received but added a period of post-release supervision. This timely appeal followed. {¶ 3} In his sole assignment of error, Reinert contends the trial court erred in imposing non-minimum and consecutive prison terms when it resentenced him. His specific argument is that the severance remedy adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, which now permits trial courts to impose more-than-minimum and consecutive sentences without making certain findings, violates the ex post facto and due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution when applied to him. Therefore, Reinert claims the trial court was required to impose minimum, concurrent prison terms. {¶ 4} W e have rejected Reinert’s argument many times before. See, e.g., State v. North, Clark App. No. 07CA0059, 2008-Ohio-6239, ¶8-9; State v. Nunez, Montgomery App. No. 22208, 2008-Ohio-3376, ¶11; State v. Bell, 176 Ohio App.3d 378, 396-397, 2008-Ohio-2578. On July 28, 2009, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected the same argument in State v. Elmore, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-3478, finding that application of Foster’s severance remedy to defendants who are resentenced after Foster does not violate their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial or the Ex Post Facto or Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, Reinert’s assignment of error is overruled.
1
R.C. 2929.191 provides for correction of a judgment of conviction to include notice that an offender will be subject to a period of post-release supervision.
−3−
{¶ 5} The judgment of the Greene County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. ............. DONOVAN, P.J., and GRADY, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Stephen K. Haller Stephanie R. Hayden Barry Wilford Hon. Stephen Wolaver
